full frame

Guidenet said:

I used to have a D2x and it was an excellent camera and the viewfinder was very pretty. It had better be for the cost. I don't remember it to be the BEST there ever was. I no longer have it but I think the D700 or D3 view is pretty much impossible to beat and a bit better than the D2x as far as I can remember.

Click to expand...

I just compared the D700 (105mm, f/2.8 lens) and the D2x (70mm, another f/2.8 lens) at the same subject distance so the subject filled the both frames equally. If there was any difference in brightness, I couldn't detect it. The D2x viewfinder gave me about the same image size that I got looking unaided (no camera, no glasses). The image seen in the D700's viewfinder was significantly larger though, so I'd have to say that the D700 was the easy winner, at least for this kind of comparison.

Guidenet said:

Chato said:

Personally I think the expression is meaningless and confusing.

Every camera is a "full frame" camera. The advantages or disadvantages of a larger sensor may very well be important....

Click to expand...

But it's not meaningless or confusing in the context it is used. If you wish to know the field of view of a lens, you just need to remember for one format in portable cameras. That's become 35mm. From there you apply crop factors to make it easy.

Click to expand...

Maybe so, maybe so, but the 35mm size is arbitrary. What about the tens of varieties of MF sensors? No two alike? APS size is also a film based size.

Tell me, was this expression "Full Frame" ever used in film? Who knew or cared?

And yes, crop factors apply. Fine.

Guidenet said:

For example, Olympus made a line of "Half Frame" cameras in the 1960s. Everyone knew what that meant. It was half the frame of 35mm film. Today 4/3rd is about the sam, but a different name. You might could claim APS-C to be 3/4 frame cameras. It doesn't matter what you call it but it does have a meaning. Nikon says FX and DX. Again, what's the difference as long as you know how that size crops a larger format.

Click to expand...

Yup, this is true. Know your crop factor. Leica S?

Guidenet said:

Guidenet said:

I just don't think it matters enough to switch from APS to 35mm
I believe the quality of the lens is more important than the size of the sensor.
Even in low light, an APS sized sensor works just fine...

Click to expand...

Sure APS works fine. I have a D300 and use it often. Nothing wrong with it. For some, moving to FX is too expensive to consider. To others it might not be. And, of course the lens makes a big difference. But let me tell you. Go get you a D700 for a week or so and come back and tell me what you think. Most are peasantly surprised.

Open up that RAW file in your favorite converter and editor and you'll find headroom, bottom room, living room and maybe a hotel room when your wife finds out what you just spent. Don't do it unless you're willing to make the journey.

Click to expand...

Guidenet said:

As far as bird and wildlife photographers go, I've personally found that most of the seriously passionate ones, the ones that buy the big glass and travel far and wide, use full frame (FX, 35mm) cameras. When I hear through the grapevine that a fairly rare bird can be found on some trail in the Everglades, and I get back in there, I see very few crop cameras. I see Canon 1DS types, 5D types, D700 models with grips and D3s. Now around Anhinga Trail where all the birders mix it up with the tourists and average joes who like to shoot birds, you see everything. But, it's really no big deal. It's just my personal experience in one part of the country. Elsewhere might be different.

Click to expand...

Such is not my experience. Most prefer the smaller sensor because of the greater number of pixels on target. Rarely do I wish that I had a larger sensor. Only when I manage to get very close to a large bird. But short of being on top of the target I prefer the greater detail that results from the smaller sensor.

And after all, with smaller birds, this is never an issue.

Guidenet said:

I think the myth about bird and wildlife photographers preferring APS-C for the supposed reach is more of an Internet Forum tale.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. As you point out there is no freater reach. An 800mm is an 800mm no matter what sensor is used - But as you also said, (and is also true) there is a greater number of pixels on the target with the smaller sensor, and this allows greater clarity in what the lens is capable of resolving. It may not resolve more detail, but whatever detail a lens Can resolve is clearer.

In other words, the D2x actually puts the same number of pixels on target as the D3x, even though the 3x has twice as many pixels in the sensor.

Dave

Guidenet said:

--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile

Click to expand...

Graystar said:

1. Total light collected.
2. Shallower DOF.
3. Better detail.

1. Total light - The rules of exposure are the same for the small cameras as they are for large cameras. At an ISO of 100 with an aperture of f/4, a given scene will require the same shutter speed in any camera that is framing said scene. That’s what I mean by the rules of exposure being the same for all cameras. However, the cameras with larger sensors will collect more light. This is important because the amount of noise in your image is directly related to the amount of light you collected. More light equals less noise. You can use this noise advantage over the small camera in two ways...you can keep the lower noise level to improve image quality, or you can trade the noise advantage for higher ISO. This will give you the same image quality as the smaller camera, but with faster shutter speeds.

Click to expand...

I don't buy this explanation. It is after all the lens that collects the light and distributes it proportionally to the sensor. The same amount of light strikes every place on the sensor equally.

Graystar said:

2. Shallow DOF - Shallow DOF is a tool used by photographers to separate the subject from backgrounds and other objects...so it’s useful to have a good range of usable, shallow DOF. The larger the sensor, the more shallow the DOF. But why is this? Like exposure, there are rules that must be obeyed by cameras no matter what size they are. A compact camera such as the Canon G12 has an effective focal length of 28-140mm...”effective” being the key word. The G12 lens gives the framing of a 35mm camera with a 28-140mm lens. However, the actual focal length of the lens is 6.1-30.5mm. And there’s the problem...the DOF that the camera gives is based on the actual focal length...not the effective focal length. And as most people know, lenses with very short focal lengths do not have a shallow depth of field.

Click to expand...

This is true. Fine. Life sucks. Know your tool and work with your tool. If the only question in photography was DOF, we would all own LF or MF cameras.

Graystar said:

3. Better detail - Physics doesn’t allow a lens to focus light to a point. The “point” turns out to be a small circle called an Airy disk, and these Airy disks will blur your image if they are too big. Once again, the small cameras must abide by the laws of physics. The size of the Airy disk depends on aperture only. That is to say, f/4 on a tiny compact camera produces the same size Airy disks as f/4 on a full frame DLSR. On the compact camera, the Airy disk will cover several pixels because the pixels are so small. But on the DSLR, the Airy disk can sometimes fit inside one pixel. This increases detail and contrast in the image from the larger sensor.

Click to expand...

I think the above ignores all the factors that involve resolving detail. At some point stuffing recievers on a sensor becomes counter productive. But with todays technology, a 12 meg APS sensor can easily handle the problems of noise. In fact, a 12 meg sensor has about the same number of recievers per square inch as a 24 meg full frame sensor.

Graystar said:

Bottom line...bigga is betta!

Click to expand...

Sometimes...

Dave

Christakis said:

Chato said:

Christakis said:

Jaahn said:

Having shot 35 mm film for a number of years, using mainly 35, 85 and 105 lenses, I can see that my DX camera has a different "look", most likely due to the deeper depth of field at equivalent focal lengths with the zoom. And of course the lower resolution compared to slide film.

Click to expand...

This is exactly what I mentioned in one of my replies above. The crop sensors have a different look. I don't think it's the dof to blame alone, perspective is also slightly different because you use wider focal lengths to get the same field of view.

Christakis said:

Really, I would want a FF digital camera just to get back those fast primes, even if I had to focus myself. Or maybe I should just get a 50 mm 1.4 af-s and stop complaining.

Click to expand...

The fast primes are to die for. I gave up auto focus and automatic metering to get the speed of the fast primes and I'm not regretting it one minute. Viva la primes

The 50mm 1.4 af-s, should make you very very happy although I don't know which lens you are talking about exactly; how does it perform wide open?

If you like primes wide open you will love my blog But, before you check it out, be warned, give your wallet to your wife to hide it ;-)

Christakis

http://blog.christakisphoto.com/
(Updated every Monday and Friday)

Click to expand...

No offense guys, but the way the scene looks from a viewfinder is a reflection of what the manufacturerer wants to peddle and/or provide.

Click to expand...

None taken. The different "look" we were talking about, isn't when you view from the viewfinder, it's on the actual picture captured.

Christakis said:

I've handled just about every camera on the market, and as I said in a previous post, nothing beats the viewfinder on the APS sized Nikon D2x. Of course I paid 5K for that camera...

Click to expand...

Have you handled a range finder? or just SLRs?

Christakis said:

The "tunnel effect" which so many complain about is simply absent with this camera.

Click to expand...

No "tunnel effect" with a range finder ;-)

Christakis said:

Dave

Click to expand...

Christakis
--
http://blog.christakisphoto.com/
(Updated every Monday and Friday)

Click to expand...

There are of course only a limited number of rangefinders to choose from. And none of them are really good wildlife cameras...

So this is an academic question for me.

Dave

Chato said:

An 800mm is an 800mm no matter what sensor is used - But as you also said, (and is also true) there is a greater number of pixels on the target with the smaller sensor, and this allows greater clarity in what the lens is capable of resolving. It may not resolve more detail, but whatever detail a lens Can resolve is clearer.

In other words, the D2x actually puts the same number of pixels on target as the D3x, even though the 3x has twice as many pixels in the sensor.

Dave

Click to expand...

Dave, it all depends on whether your have to crop and how much. There are times I shoot birds in flight with a 85 f/1.4 on a D700. There are other times when my 500 f/4 and 1.7 on my D300 is still too little. There is no best. All I'm saying is that I see the big guns around where I live more often shooting FX, either Canon or Nikon. In the future that might change. Right now, 12 megapixels on either doesn't make as much difference most time for cropping. If and when they make a 24mp crop camera, things might change.

And, there's still a lot of folks on the trails that haven't moved up yet. It's quite expensive.

Also, it's not so much that more pixels on the target resolve more detail so much as when the crop starts breaking down and you get pixelation. Until that happens, I'm not sure the higher pixel density resolves more.
--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile

Chato said:

Graystar said:

1. Total light - the cameras with larger sensors will collect more light.

Click to expand...

I don't buy this explanation. It is after all the lens that collects the light and distributes it proportionally to the sensor. The same amount of light strikes every place on the sensor equally.

Click to expand...

That’s right. Now make the sensor a little bigger. The same amount of light is striking the new area that you added, right? Think of your DX and FX camera with the same lens at the same aperture. The light coming through the lens is exactly the same on both cameras, right? Changing camera types didn’t change how the light comes through the lens, right? The FX sensor is collecting the same light as the DX sensor, and in addition it’s collecting light that DX sensor misses because it’s smaller.

Now, you’re certainly not going to say that exposure changes between the two cameras, right? If you frame an evenly lit gray wall with your FX camera and then replace the camera with a DX camera (keep the lens as is) then the exposure will remain the same. Yes, the physical framing is different, but the luminance is the same, and exposure is based on luminance. This is why a light meter works for any camera regardless of focal length (within known limits, of course.)

Chato said:

Chato said:

2. Shallow DOF - The larger the sensor, the more shallow the DOF.

Click to expand...

This is true. Fine. Life sucks. Know your tool and work with your tool. If the only question in photography was DOF, we would all own LF or MF cameras.

Click to expand...

Sounds like someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

Chato said:

Chato said:

3. Better detail - On the compact camera, the Airy disk will cover several pixels because the pixels are so small. But on the DSLR, the Airy disk can sometimes fit inside one pixel. This increases detail and contrast in the image from the larger sensor.

Click to expand...

I think the above ignores all the factors that involve resolving detail. At some point stuffing recievers on a sensor becomes counter productive.

Click to expand...

I don’t know what that means but I'm sure it's wrong.

Chato said:

But with todays technology, a 12 meg APS sensor can easily handle the problems of noise. In fact, a 12 meg sensor has about the same number of recievers per square inch as a 24 meg full frame sensor.

Click to expand...

That makes no difference. Yes, there was a presumption in my explanation that the two sensors had the same pixel count. However, even with different pixel counts, the smaller sensor must be magnified more to create any given sized print (or displayed on any given monitor) and that means that the contrast loss due to diffraction will also be magnified.

.

Guidenet said:

Chato said:

An 800mm is an 800mm no matter what sensor is used - But as you also said, (and is also true) there is a greater number of pixels on the target with the smaller sensor, and this allows greater clarity in what the lens is capable of resolving. It may not resolve more detail, but whatever detail a lens Can resolve is clearer.

In other words, the D2x actually puts the same number of pixels on target as the D3x, even though the 3x has twice as many pixels in the sensor.

Dave

Click to expand...

Dave, it all depends on whether your have to crop and how much. There are times I shoot birds in flight with a 85 f/1.4 on a D700. There are other times when my 500 f/4 and 1.7 on my D300 is still too little. There is no best. All I'm saying is that I see the big guns around where I live more often shooting FX, either Canon or Nikon. In the future that might change. Right now, 12 megapixels on either doesn't make as much difference most time for cropping. If and when they make a 24mp crop camera, things might change.

And, there's still a lot of folks on the trails that haven't moved up yet. It's quite expensive.

Click to expand...

When I was ready to purchase my next machine, I did the math in a comparison with the equivalent Canon and the 2x. The Nikon put more pixels on target. Indeed, (off the top of my head) in order to match the 2x you would need a sensor with over Twice the MP's/

Guidenet said:

Also, it's not so much that more pixels on the target resolve more detail so much as when the crop starts breaking down and you get pixelation. Until that happens, I'm not sure the higher pixel density resolves more.

Click to expand...

I thought I said that?

"...and this allows greater clarity in what the lens is capable of resolving. It may not resolve more detail, but whatever detail a lens Can resolve is clearer."

Resolving power is a product of reach, and as you point out (and I agree) the crop factor does Not give more reach. But it does allow a greater "clarity" in whatever the lens is capable of resolving.

Clarity is not everything, and I would trade my camera for the D3x, since they will produce the same clarity of image. And the 3x has many other advantages that have nothing to do with what we are talking about.



Dave

Guidenet said:

--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile

Click to expand...

Graystar said:

Chato said:

Graystar said:

1. Total light - the cameras with larger sensors will collect more light.

Click to expand...

I don't buy this explanation. It is after all the lens that collects the light and distributes it proportionally to the sensor. The same amount of light strikes every place on the sensor equally.

Click to expand...

That’s right. Now make the sensor a little bigger. The same amount of light is striking the new area that you added, right? Think of your DX and FX camera with the same lens at the same aperture. The light coming through the lens is exactly the same on both cameras, right? Changing camera types didn’t change how the light comes through the lens, right? The FX sensor is collecting the same light as the DX sensor, and in addition it’s collecting light that DX sensor misses because it’s smaller.

Now, you’re certainly not going to say that exposure changes between the two cameras, right? If you frame an evenly lit gray wall with your FX camera and then replace the camera with a DX camera (keep the lens as is) then the exposure will remain the same. Yes, the physical framing is different, but the luminance is the same, and exposure is based on luminance. This is why a light meter works for any camera regardless of focal length (within known limits, of course.)

Click to expand...

I've never understood why anyone would choose a DX lens...

Graystar said:

Graystar said:

Graystar said:

2. Shallow DOF - The larger the sensor, the more shallow the DOF.

Click to expand...

This is true. Fine. Life sucks. Know your tool and work with your tool. If the only question in photography was DOF, we would all own LF or MF cameras.

Click to expand...

Sounds like someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound offensive. Really...

Graystar said:

Graystar said:

Graystar said:

3. Better detail - On the compact camera, the Airy disk will cover several pixels because the pixels are so small. But on the DSLR, the Airy disk can sometimes fit inside one pixel. This increases detail and contrast in the image from the larger sensor.

Click to expand...

I think the above ignores all the factors that involve resolving detail. At some point stuffing recievers on a sensor becomes counter productive.

Click to expand...

I don’t know what that means but I'm sure it's wrong.

Click to expand...

Noise and the need for NR software. You know, the usual screams of rage at some tiny sensor with 15 megs packed in...

Graystar said:

Graystar said:

But with todays technology, a 12 meg APS sensor can easily handle the problems of noise. In fact, a 12 meg sensor has about the same number of recievers per square inch as a 24 meg full frame sensor.

Click to expand...

That makes no difference. Yes, there was a presumption in my explanation that the two sensors had the same pixel count. However, even with different pixel counts, the smaller sensor must be magnified more to create any given sized print (or displayed on any given monitor) and that means that the contrast loss due to diffraction will also be magnified.

Click to expand...

The size of the print is based on the MP count. The quality of the print is based on the IQ of the image. While theoretically the larger sensor will have a greater IQ, this is Only true if the recievers per square inch is greater with one or the other. In practice there are many other factors which create the IQ.

Dave

The problem is that cropping costs money, unless every frame is being cropped the same. It is much easier getting a cropped frame from the camera than to record too-wide frames and end up throwing away the excess megapixels at your expense.

--
http://www.alexanderrogge.net/arshutterbug

The advantage is that it isn't a partial frame, and having fullness is so much better than having only part of something. That's why it costs more money, and so it must be better.

--
http://www.alexanderrogge.net/arshutterbug